Me too, nice bonus! Love these guys. Don't always agree with 'em, but they're entertaining and so are their written reviews. Fun to compare and contrast.
Cliffhanger is one of the best action movies of the decade. Bad guys make action movies, and Cliffhanger has great bad guys, as well as fantastic action scenes and a solid plot.
I know I cracked up when he said " no no not this " just bc rober said " gee I dont know gene " rofl. My favorite reviews if theirs are when they hate something together so much they crack up. See red sonya or Leonard part 6.
and he followed that up with DEMOLITION MAN, another movie that is one of my favorites, that came out in the fall of the same year, it was a good year for him
Saw Cliffhanger in 1993 on a Saturday night at a sneak preview (anyone remember those?). I can tell you very much that the audience was rocking and reeling the entire time with excitment.
I agree with Ebert. Every entertaining action popcorn flick doesn't need an insanely good story if it still manages to be entertaining and carry you through the ride. Not everything has to be the Mona Lisa or super deep to be enjoyable, lol. You can be in the mood for different stuff at different times. It doesn't make you shallow for liking it either ;)
John Lithgow says that if he had a nickel for every time someone asked him to quote, "You know what true love is? Sacrifice." I think that means it was good.
@@ricardocantoral7672 I first encountered Lithgow in Cliffhanger. I was like 14. He scared the bejeesus out of me. When I saw him in Third Rock later on, I was like, "This guy...can play that guy?" I know that's what an actor's job is, but it shows that to me anyway he gave a great performance.
Back in the 90s, when we used video stores, we would get the weekend movies on Friday night turn them in on Monday morn on the way to work. I saw hundreds of movies this way, and passed up thousands of movies left on the shelves. Cliffhanger was one of those. Never saw it.
The way Siskel says "Go ahead" at 4:17 kills me. Like a pissed off wife who wants to scold his husband, but they're in public so she's gonna wait til they get home to lace into him.
A mean spirited review from Siskel here. There’s nothing wrong with Stallone here at all. The story in Cliffhanger’s pretty solid to me. Simple but effective in how the opening scene’s trauma adds real vulnerability to the hero. The photography, the score and John Lithgow’s central villain all elevate the film even higher too.
I think this Stallone best action film since First blood. At that time. It is rollercoaster ride of a movie. Mountain scenes made me feel afraid of heights too.
Cliffhanger is a great movie(great action scenes ,but no script). I don't know if anybody feels the same way I do: John Lithgow is a great villain, but he is another actor Hollywood did not know what to do with after early successes.
I swear. . They hate every movie I loved growing up. . . Cliffhanger was great. . Great stunts, and John Lithgow was a great villain. . . Good for you Ebert.
I have to agree with Siskel about 'Cliffhanger' and the script. I was very disappointed and the film doesn't add up to much, despite impressive moments.
@@ricardocantoral7672 Of course i do! and so do my two youtube friends Ocpcommunicationd and Ramboraph4life who are friends of mine on facebook and here on youtube as my 2 favorite critics as they are critics with a passion for movies They have high standards like me
Made in America was comedy fluff but we don't always need a message or deep movie. Siskel was really off this episode and I usually agree with him. I saw Cliffhanger in the theater and the audience loved it.
No punches held back, despite Gene's ailment. Cliffhanger was definitely one of their most heated arguments on the show. Nice to see Richard Crenna with a sense of humor after his Rambo appearances. The cycle of the Airplane/Naked Gun-type comedies lasted thru one more Naked Gun movie and a couple of Scary Movies before fading away.
Siskel thought that every single movie had to be Citizen Kane in order to be worth watching. He was pretty ridiculous in that aspect, but fun to watch. RIP
Cliffhanger has lots of action, but some outrageous over acting with testosterone being sprayed all over the place and a scenery chewing contest between Michael Rooker, Rex Lynn and John Lithgow.
I miss these guys and I enjoyed Gene Siskel...but these are some of the movies he gave a thumbs down to. A reminder not to take movie critics too seriously. -Apocalypse Now -Beverly Hills Cop - Ferris Buellers Day Off - The Terminator - Hoosiers -Field of Dreams -Silence of the Lambs - Cliffhanger - Boogie Nights - Casino -Edward Scissorhands
Gene Siskel & Roger Ebert knew that men and women had been having a traumatic year after watching the traumatic Sylvester Stallone suspense movie Cliffhanger.
14:18 "I liked it and yet, at the same time I have a strange feeling that this genre has reached the end of its reproductive cycle." I think this is one of Ebert's best predictions of all time. That genre really started to suck around that time.
How many action films have we seen where an innocent guy gets hijacked by a bunch of villains who've stolen a bunch of money? At this point, that's a standard plot. Your action movie then becomes less about story, and more about location and style. Death-defying heights! Breathtaking scenery! Beautiful photography! Skillful staging of scenes! A real sense of mortal danger! Cliffhanger has all of these, in spades. It's like what Roger always said: "When it comes to a movie, it's not about what it's about―it's about _how it's about it."_
Cliffhanger is the definition of a pretty average premise, with meh characters, and meh dialogue being elevated by it's gorgeous cinematography. That alone makes it worth the watch for me. As an action flick it's also fun, but not special.
Hey Cliffhanger that movie came out in 1993 that same I have was three when I didn't see that movie that was to violent for me when I was a child back then but I saw this when it was out on paper-view back then but I went with my parents to go see Jurassic park & Dennis the menace in that same year of 1993.
Siskel puts a bit too much weight in screenplay. Film is a visual medium. And there are so many elements and pieces that make up a movie. Screen okay is important. But if other elements are working while the screenplay lacks, you are still left with a experience that can entertain. Siskel didn’t like the story. It doesn’t mean it isn’t entertaining for people. In the end. That’s what a movie is a bout. Entertainment and escapism. Ebert always understood this.
Crushing Cliffhanger AND simultaneously praising Die Hard 2: There´s gotta be a "No but seriously"-part of Siskels review that somehow got cut and lost. This must be the April´s Fool version.
@@Johnlindsey289 There's nothing wrong as far it does what he should be as far as action/suspense. But I find the story quite unremarkable. They try to repeat a movie like Die Hard but without the great writing or great characters. Even the main villain seems to be a Hans Gruber wannabe but less interesting.
@@johnnyskinwalker4095 I disagree,, the villains are strong and charismatic in this movie and the script and story is good stuff! plus likable hero. i think this is a classic and even my two favorite youtube critics (better than pro critics) who are real people with an actual passion for movies praised this movie as their names are Ocpcommunications and Ramboraph4life and gave it five stars, even me. They have actual standards in movies like me and unlike pro critics
Gene loved Rocky 5, but did not like Cliffhanger. Well ok different kind of movies. But Rocky 5 was uninspiring, bland and boring. Cliffhanger was fun and entertaining.
@@qrste81 It was Ebert with the cancerous salivary glands. Siskel had a cancerous brain tumor and it was the after effects of a surgery that took his lide. I seriously just think he had a sore throat here.
Gene really got it wrong with Cliffhanger but I disagree with Roger that there's no story. It has a basic story (bad guys want money, they kidnap one of the good guys and force him to help, Stallone's gotta rescue him) and the villains were made evil and ruthless enough that you wanted to see Stallone wipe them out. I'd even say that Michael Rooker's subplot was more interesting than Stallone's. You can call it derivative of Die Hard, but if you're gonna copy a movie, it makes sense to copy a good one.
Does anyone wish Siskel and Ebert was just Ebert. 😂 Siskel is wrong so often it’s unreal, you’d be better off flipping a coin, at least that’s right 50% of the time.
Roger Ebert once said that if Gene liked some things in a movie and not others, he usually wouldn't give the movie a positive review. I think it's fair to say that Roger was more likely to come up with a review where he'd basically say "some things in this movie worked for me, some didn't, but enough good things were here for me to give it a thumbs-up".